But hiding from the US Immigration Service isn’t a crime. So this isn’t really on all fours with the Trump case.
It can be. Evading a warrant is a crime.
Is it illegal to flee the country in your efforts to hide from Immigration?
I recall some case I read where “we agree to share the legal costs” in a criminal event, because it involves a crime, would not be a legally enforceable contract. Trump can offer to pay, but probably the other fellow can’t force him to make good on his “contract”.
No - this isn’t correct. One way to think of this is that many acts while legal from a criminal point of view carry the risk of costs defending civil action. Think of the employer/employee or agent relationship where the employer indemnifies the other party. The employer who does this does not implicitly acknowledge the acts of the employee or agent are probably illegal.
Well, absent some agreement to the contrary (or evidence that the employer directed the employee) an employer is generally not liable for an employee’s criminal acts.
Yes - I mentioned civil action.
I misread your post, sorry. Though an employer is generally also not liable for an employee’s intentional torts, too.
Without getting into whether that case and the Trump one are exactly the same (dueling cases in political ‘hypocrisy’ debates on the internet virtually never are), it suggests to me that generally similar situations have probably arisen, and there may actually be case law.
But anyway having to employ an attorney in a criminal case doesn’t mean you committed a crime, a rather elementary point it would seem, even aside from cases where you have to employ a lawyer in a civil case. So it definitely doesn’t work to say a ‘public figure instigator’ knew somebody would be committing a crime if they offered legal help upfront.
I think the focus instead would be on what exactly the public figure encouraged a person to do, by way of offering any help to them. But it seems to me the Trump case is well within a gray area of claiming that the encouraged act in the general statement(s) was self defense. Trump can say the act he had in mind was not sucker punching anybody, and that his generous offer of help to this particular sucker puncher does not redefine what he meant in his original statement, which was something else.
Anyway IMO this kind of thing is way below any really reasonable threshold for criminal legal action against the public figure (an actual physical attacker should be prosecuted though). It’s a matter of judging whether you can vote for a public figure who acts that way. Making it more would part of the over-legalizing of American society.
I read it. What adaher seems to be saying is that, if the act is bad enough to press charges, then the incitement of that act should also be enough to press charges.
Of course, that’s only if they actually incited that act, and not something perfectly legal, and the instigator crossed the line into illegality.
I also will opine that this post has made me second guess how safe we are. Being able to commit a violent act to stop a criminal act–effectively making civilians into cops, seems like a horrible idea. To protect themselves or others is one thing, and makes sense. But just to stop a criminal act? That does not.
It seems to get rid of any duty to retreat, really.
Violence =/= deadly force. You can’t kick an old lady down the stairs to prevent her from stealing a pack of gum, but you can probably grab her arm and restrain her.
How? If you see someone attempting a battery towards me, use force to prevent the battery.
The words “knock the crap out of them” are vague enough to encompass lawful defense of a third person. People are not required to use precise legal terminology in conversation. No reasonable person would take that statement to mean to beat the person to death or to seriously injure them.
As a general principle I would tend to argue the opposite. People that are in a position of leadership, or high public profile I think have a greater duty to act responsibly than a “general citizen”. Particularly those that are deliberately seeking out fame and shouting from their public platform.
In other words - I expect more of a leader than of a normal citizen.
YMMV
Maybe I got the terms wrong. But isn’t a violation of civil law also considered to be illegal?
Not always, in common parlance. It’s a breach of contract for you to quit your job without giving whatever notice is stipulated in the contract, but not many people would describe walking off the job without notice as “illegal”.
In the context of this thread, though, we’re talking about the legal status of Trump’s exhortation to “knock the crap out of” someone about to throw a tomato, and his promise to “pay for the legal fees”.
If that amounts to incitement to commit a crime then, yes, it’s illegal (in the sense of being criminal). But if it merely amounts to incitement to commit a civil wrong, then it’s not illegal (in the sense of criminal) and I think is probably not illegal (in the sense of actionable) at all.
Hence if we are asking whether knocking the crap out of an intending tomato-thrower would be “illegal”, we almost certainly mean illegal in the sense of criminal. In this context we really don’t care if it would be illegal in the sense of actionable.